Posts
The International Comparison
How Other Countries Handle Sports IP
Who Owns The Game? – Part 7 | February 14, 2026
Part 0: Who Owns The Catch? — The overview
Part 1: You're Not A Creator — Copyright law and athletic performances
Part 2: The Immaculate Theft — 50 years, $0 to Franco Harris
Part 3: The Residuals Gap — Why actors get paid forever
Part 4: The Taylor Swift Strategy — Reclaiming your masters
Part 5: The Hidden Revenue — What the NFL won't disclose
Part 6: The Video Game Loophole — Why Madden pays but highlights don't
Part 7: The International Comparison ← YOU ARE HERE
Part 8: The Case Nobody Will File — The lawsuit that could change everything
Europe: Image Rights as Property
In many European countries, particularly the UK, Spain, Italy, and France, image rights are treated as a distinct form of property, separate from employment contracts and separate from copyright.
Here's how it works in European football (soccer):
The Structure
1. Players control their image rights.
A player's "image" includes their name, likeness, signature, voice, and any identifiable personal attributes. Under European law (particularly UK and EU member states), these rights are considered personal property that can be owned, licensed, and transferred.
2. Players often create separate companies to manage image rights.
Many top players (Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Neymar, etc.) set up dedicated image rights companies. These companies own the commercial rights to the player's image and license those rights to:
- The player's club (for use in team marketing, merchandise, broadcasts)
- Sponsors (Adidas, Nike, etc.)
- Broadcasters (for documentaries, highlight packages, promotional content)
- Video game companies (EA Sports pays for likeness rights in FIFA/FC)
The advantage: income from image rights is often taxed at lower rates than salary (depending on jurisdiction), and it gives players control over how their image is used.
3. Clubs pay players for image rights as part of their contracts.
When a club signs a player, the contract typically includes two components:
- Salary: Payment for playing football
- Image rights fees: Payment for the club's right to use the player's image in marketing, broadcasts, and merchandise
For top players, image rights fees can be 20-40% of total compensation. For example:
- Salary: €20 million/year
- Image rights: €8 million/year
- Total comp: €28 million/year
This structure recognizes that a player's image has commercial value independent of their on-field performance.
4. Broadcasters must negotiate for use of player images.
When a broadcaster wants to use footage of a match in a documentary, commercial, or highlight package (beyond the original news/journalistic use), they may need to negotiate with:
- The league or club (which owns the copyright to the broadcast)
- The players' image rights holders (if the use is commercial and identifiable players are featured)
This isn't always enforced (news/editorial use is protected), but for clearly commercial uses—ads, branded content, for-profit documentaries—players can demand payment.
LEGAL FOUNDATION:
• Image rights = distinct property right under European law (UK, Spain, Italy, France, Germany)
• Separate from employment contract, separate from copyright
• Player owns their name, likeness, signature, voice
STRUCTURE:
• Players create image rights companies (e.g., "CR7 Image Rights Ltd" for Cristiano Ronaldo)
• Company owns commercial rights to player's image
• Company licenses rights to:
→ Club (for marketing, broadcasts, merch)
→ Sponsors (Adidas, Nike, etc.)
→ Broadcasters (for docs, highlights, promos)
→ Video game companies (EA for FIFA/FC)
CONTRACT STRUCTURE (TOP PLAYERS):
• Salary: €20M/year (for playing football)
• Image rights fees: €8M/year (for club's use of player's image)
• Total comp: €28M/year
• Image rights = 20-40% of total comp for stars
BROADCASTER OBLIGATIONS:
• Live broadcasts / news highlights = covered by broadcast copyright (no player payment required)
• Commercial use (ads, for-profit docs, branded content) = may require negotiation with player
• Depends on jurisdiction and use case, but principle established: commercial use of identifiable
players can trigger image rights claims
KEY DIFFERENCE FROM U.S.:
European players have structural recognition that their image has commercial value
independent of the broadcast. U.S. players don't. Copyright preempts everything.
Real Examples: Ronaldo, Messi, and Neymar
Cristiano Ronaldo reportedly earns €40-50 million annually from image rights (separate from his club salary). His image rights company licenses his likeness to:
- Nike ($1 billion lifetime deal)
- CR7-branded products (underwear, fragrances, hotels)
- EA Sports (for use in FIFA/FC video games)
- Broadcasters and documentary producers
When a broadcaster wants to produce a Ronaldo documentary, they negotiate with his image rights company. Ronaldo gets paid. His club gets paid (for footage ownership). The broadcaster pays both.
Lionel Messi has a similar structure. His image rights are managed through a company that licenses his likeness globally. Estimated earnings from image rights: €30-40 million annually.
Neymar reportedly negotiated a deal with Paris Saint-Germain where €30 million of his annual compensation came from image rights fees—nearly as much as his playing salary.
This isn't just for superstars. Mid-tier European players also negotiate image rights as part of their contracts, though the amounts are smaller (€500K - €2 million/year for good players, more for stars).
Why This Works in Europe But Not the U.S.
European image rights work because:
1. Different legal framework. European countries recognize image rights as property under civil law. The U.S. has state-level "right of publicity" laws, but they're weaker and preempted by federal copyright in most sports contexts.
2. EU-wide legal harmonization. The EU has worked to harmonize intellectual property protections across member states, creating a consistent framework for image rights. The U.S. has no equivalent—every state has different publicity rights laws, and federal copyright overrides them all.
3. Less entrenched league power. European football leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Serie A) are powerful, but they don't have the same level of structural control as American leagues. Players have more leverage, partly because of the transfer system (players can move between leagues/countries more easily) and partly because European labor law is more player-friendly.
4. Cultural difference. European sports culture accepts that players are brands separate from teams. American sports culture emphasizes team/league branding over individual athletes (though this is changing with social media).
EUROPE:
• Image rights = property under civil law (UK, EU member states)
• EU-wide legal harmonization (consistent IP framework)
• Players have leverage (transfer system, labor law protections)
• Cultural acceptance: players = brands separate from teams
• Result: Players earn €20M-€50M/year from image rights (top stars)
UNITED STATES:
• No federal image rights law; state-level "right of publicity" varies
• Federal copyright preempts state publicity rights (17 U.S.C. § 301(a))
• Leagues have structural control (no international transfer market, short careers = less leverage)
• Cultural emphasis on team/league over individual athletes
• Result: Players earn $0 from footage reuse, no image rights payments separate from salary
COULD U.S. ADOPT EUROPEAN MODEL?
Theoretically yes—Congress could create federal image rights law or exempt sports from
copyright preemption. But: no political will, strong league opposition, NFLPA not pushing.
Practically: not happening.
Japan: Strong Publicity Rights Under Civil Law
Japan has some of the strongest publicity rights protections in Asia, rooted in Article 709 of the Civil Code, which protects against infringement of personal rights.
Japanese courts have ruled that:
1. Athletes have a right to control commercial use of their image. Unauthorized use of an athlete's likeness for profit—even if the image comes from publicly broadcast footage—can be considered an infringement of personal rights.
2. "Parasitic use" is actionable. If a company uses footage of an athlete in a way that exceeds the original journalistic purpose (e.g., repackaging old sports footage into a commercial "greatest moments" compilation), the athlete can sue for unauthorized commercial exploitation.
3. Broadcasters must obtain consent for certain uses. While live broadcasts and immediate news coverage are protected, Japanese broadcasters often negotiate separate agreements with athletes (or their management companies) for use of footage in long-form documentaries, commercial compilations, or branded content.
Example: Ichiro Suzuki
Ichiro Suzuki, one of Japan's most famous baseball players, has strong image rights protections in Japan. When Japanese broadcasters wanted to produce documentaries about his career, they negotiated licensing agreements with his management company—even though the broadcasters already owned the footage of his games.
The distinction: Using footage for news = no payment required. Using footage for a commercial documentary or highlight package = payment required.
This is the model the U.S. could theoretically adopt (commercial use exception), but hasn't.
Why Japan's Model Works
Japan's approach is based on civil law protections for personal rights, not copyright. The legal framework treats an individual's image as part of their personal dignity and economic value, both of which deserve protection.
In the U.S., we don't have equivalent federal protections. State publicity rights laws exist, but they're preempted by copyright when footage is involved. Japan's civil law doesn't have this preemption issue—personal rights and copyright coexist.
South Korea: Athletes Successfully Sue Broadcasters
South Korea has seen multiple cases where athletes successfully sued broadcasters for unauthorized commercial use of footage.
Notable case (2015): A group of retired football (soccer) players sued Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) for using archival footage of their games in a commercial "greatest moments" compilation DVD sold for profit.
The players argued:
- The original broadcasts were made for news/journalistic purposes
- KBS repurposed the footage into a commercial product (sold DVDs)
- This exceeded the original journalistic use and infringed on their publicity rights
The court ruled in favor of the players. KBS had to pay damages and stop selling the DVDs without player consent.
This is exactly the argument American athletes could make—and would lose under current U.S. law because of copyright preemption.
Why South Korea's Rulings Matter
South Korean courts have recognized a principle that U.S. courts reject: broadcasters' copyright ownership of footage doesn't give them unlimited rights to exploit athletes' images commercially.
In South Korea:
- News use = broadcaster owns, no player payment required
- Commercial repackaging for profit = broadcaster must negotiate with players
In the U.S.:
- All use = broadcaster owns, no player payment ever (copyright preempts publicity rights)
The South Korean model proves it's possible to balance broadcaster rights with athlete protections. The U.S. just chooses not to.
EUROPE (UK, SPAIN, ITALY, FRANCE, GERMANY):
• Image rights = property, separate from copyright
• Players create image rights companies
• Clubs pay image rights fees (20-40% of total comp for stars)
• Commercial use of footage may require player consent
• Top players earn €20M-€50M/year from image rights
• U.S. equivalent: None. Copyright preempts everything.
JAPAN:
• Strong publicity rights under Civil Code Article 709
• "Parasitic use" of footage for commercial gain = actionable
• Broadcasters negotiate separately for docs/compilations
• Ichiro's management company licenses his image for commercial use
• U.S. equivalent: None. Dryer v. NFL rejected similar claims.
SOUTH KOREA:
• Athletes successfully sued broadcasters for commercial repackaging of footage
• Court ruled: news use = OK, commercial DVDs = requires player consent
• Principle: broadcaster copyright doesn't grant unlimited commercial exploitation
• U.S. equivalent: None. Copyright grants exactly that unlimited right.
THE PATTERN:
Other countries recognize athletes' images have commercial value independent of broadcast
copyright. U.S. doesn't. American athletes have weaker protections than athletes in
countries with smaller sports economies. This isn't inevitable—it's a choice.
The Olympics: The IOC's Total Control
One global model is worse than the NFL: the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
The IOC owns all Olympic footage and exercises near-total control over how it's used. Athletes get:
- No payment for footage reuse (the IOC licenses Olympic highlights globally, athletes see $0)
- No image rights payments (even for commercial documentaries about their performances)
- Strict restrictions on social media use (athletes can't post their own Olympic footage without IOC permission—the IOC claims copyright)
The IOC's justification: the Olympics are about "amateurism" and "the spirit of sport," not commercial exploitation. (Meanwhile, the IOC itself earns billions from broadcasting rights and sponsorships.)
This is extraction at an even more extreme level than the NFL. At least NFL players are paid millions in salary. Olympic athletes in many sports earn nothing (or close to nothing) and have zero rights to footage of their performances.
The IOC model proves that sports governance can be even more exploitative than American leagues. But it's not a model anyone should aspire to—it's a cautionary tale.
What the U.S. Could Adopt (But Won't)
If the U.S. wanted to adopt elements of international models, here's what it could do:
Option 1: Create Federal Image Rights Law
Congress could pass a law recognizing image rights as property, similar to European civil law. This would give athletes (and all individuals) federal protections for commercial use of their likeness, separate from copyright.
The law could say:
"An individual's name, image, likeness, and voice are property rights protected under federal law. Unauthorized commercial use of these rights is actionable, notwithstanding any copyright in works containing the individual's image."
This would mean:
- Broadcasters still own copyright to game footage
- But if they use that footage commercially (ads, for-profit documentaries, branded content), they need the athlete's consent and must pay image rights fees
- News/editorial use remains protected (First Amendment)
Why it won't happen: Strong opposition from broadcasters, leagues, and media companies. No political constituency pushing for it. Congress has no incentive to act.
Option 2: Amend Copyright Act to Exempt Commercial Sports Use
Congress could amend Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act (the preemption clause) to create an exception for commercial use of athlete likenesses in sports footage.
Current law: Copyright preempts state publicity rights for all uses of copyrighted works.
Amended law: Copyright preempts publicity rights for news/editorial use, but not for commercial use (ads, for-profit compilations, branded content).
This is the South Korean model: let broadcasters own the footage and use it for news, but require them to negotiate with athletes for commercial exploitation.
Why it won't happen: Same reasons as Option 1. No political will, industry opposition, NFLPA not organizing for it.
Option 3: NFLPA Negotiates Image Rights Fees in CBA
Even without changing federal law, the NFLPA could demand that teams/leagues pay image rights fees as part of player contracts—modeled on European football.
This wouldn't change copyright law, but it would create a contractual obligation for leagues to compensate players separately for commercial use of their images.
Example CBA language:
"Clubs and the League acknowledge that players' names, images, and likenesses have commercial value independent of their on-field performance. In addition to salary, each player shall receive an annual Image Rights Fee equal to [X% of team revenue / $Y fixed amount / formula based on media appearances], to be paid by the Club/League for the right to use the player's image in marketing, broadcasts, documentaries, and other commercial content."
Why it won't happen: The NFLPA has never demanded this. The union focuses on salary, revenue share, and health benefits. Image rights aren't on the agenda. And without strike leverage (which players lack), the NFL won't voluntarily agree.
OPTION 1: FEDERAL IMAGE RIGHTS LAW
• Congress creates federal property right in name/image/likeness (like Europe)
• Broadcasters own copyright, but commercial use requires athlete consent + payment
• News/editorial use protected (First Amendment)
• Obstacles: Industry opposition, no political will, Congress won't act
• Likelihood: <1%
OPTION 2: AMEND COPYRIGHT ACT (COMMERCIAL USE EXCEPTION)
• Congress amends § 301(a) to exempt commercial sports use from copyright preemption
• News use = copyright preempts (broadcaster owns, no player payment)
• Commercial use (ads, for-profit docs) = publicity rights survive (player payment required)
• South Korean model: balance broadcaster rights with athlete protections
• Obstacles: Same as Option 1
• Likelihood: <1%
OPTION 3: NFLPA NEGOTIATES IMAGE RIGHTS FEES IN CBA
• Union demands image rights fees as part of player contracts (European model)
• Doesn't change copyright law, creates contractual obligation
• Players get separate payment for commercial use of image
• Obstacles: NFLPA never demanded this, not on agenda, no strike leverage
• Likelihood: <5% (only if union dramatically shifts priorities)
CONCLUSION:
U.S. could adopt international protections tomorrow if there were political will or union
pressure. But there isn't. So American athletes remain less protected than European,
Japanese, or South Korean athletes—despite playing in the world's richest sports league.
The Uncomfortable Truth
American athletes play in the world's most lucrative sports leagues. The NFL generates $25 billion annually. The NBA, MLB, and NHL generate tens of billions more combined.
Yet American athletes have weaker image rights protections than athletes in:
- The UK (where image rights are property and players negotiate fees)
- Spain, Italy, France, Germany (same)
- Japan (where broadcasters must obtain consent for commercial use)
- South Korea (where athletes successfully sue for unauthorized commercial exploitation)
This isn't because U.S. law is more advanced or sophisticated. It's because:
- American leagues have more structural power (no international transfer market, short careers = less player leverage)
- Federal copyright law preempts everything (state publicity rights can't overcome it)
- Congress protects IP owners, not performers (copyright law was written to protect studios, labels, publishers—not actors, musicians, or athletes)
- The NFLPA has never organized around this issue (image rights aren't on the bargaining agenda)
So the extraction continues. European footballers earn tens of millions from image rights. American football players earn zero.
The system isn't immutable. Other countries prove different models work. But changing U.S. law would require political pressure that doesn't exist and union organizing that hasn't happened.
In Part 8—the series finale—we'll war-game the lawsuit that could challenge the entire system. What's the strongest legal argument players could make? Who would file it? What would it take to win? And why, even if the legal case is sound, will it probably never be filed?
RESEARCH APPROACH:
Randy directed focus: Do athletes in other countries have better IP protections? Claude researched European image rights structures (UK, Spain, Italy, France legal frameworks), Japanese publicity rights (Civil Code Article 709, case law), South Korean athlete-broadcaster lawsuits (2015 KBS case), IOC Olympic footage control policies, international IP comparisons, and potential U.S. reform pathways (federal image rights law, Copyright Act amendments, CBA negotiations).
FINDINGS:
• Europe: Image rights = property; players earn €20M-€50M/year from image rights (Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar); clubs pay 20-40% of comp as image rights fees; commercial use of footage may require player consent
• Japan: Strong publicity rights (Civil Code Art. 709); broadcasters negotiate for commercial use beyond news; "parasitic use" actionable
• South Korea: Athletes won lawsuit against KBS for commercial repackaging of footage (2015); courts distinguish news use (broadcaster owns) from commercial exploitation (requires player consent)
• U.S.: No federal image rights law; copyright preempts state publicity rights; athletes have zero protection from footage reuse
• IOC: Worse than NFL—total control, athletes get $0, can't post own Olympic footage
• U.S. could adopt international models (federal image rights law, commercial use exception to copyright preemption, CBA image rights fees) but won't (no political will, industry opposition, NFLPA not pushing)
WHAT THIS MEANS:
American athletes play in world's richest leagues but have weaker image rights than European, Japanese, or South Korean athletes. This isn't inevitable—other countries prove different models work. But U.S. legal structure (copyright preemption), league power (no transfer market, short careers), and union priorities (salary over image rights) create system where athletes earn $0 from footage while European players earn millions. Reform possible in theory, impossible in practice.
NEXT IN SERIES (FINALE):
Part 8 war-games the lawsuit that could challenge the system: What's the strongest legal argument? Who would file? What would victory look like? And why—even if legally sound—will it probably never happen? The case nobody will file.
Sources: European image rights structures (UK Companies House filings for player image rights companies, sports business reporting); Japanese Civil Code Article 709 (publicity rights protection); South Korean athlete lawsuit against KBS (2015, public court filings and media reporting); IOC Rule 40 and Olympic footage policies (IOC charter, athlete guidelines); Ronaldo/Messi/Neymar image rights earnings (Forbes, sports business publications); international IP law comparisons (WIPO resources, academic papers). Full citations available on request.
Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment